Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 74

Thread: Venezuela May Ask U.S. Envoy to Leave

  1. #1

    Venezuela May Ask U.S. Envoy to Leave

    01-26) 00:00 PST CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) --


    President Hugo Chavez warned Thursday that the U.S. ambassador could be asked to leave the country if he continues "meddling in Venezuela's affairs."


    The outspoken Venezuelan leader lashed out after William Brownfield said U.S. companies and investors must receive a fair price for their shares of Venezuela's largest telephone company when Chavez's government nationalizes it.


    "If you continue meddling in Venezuela's affairs, first of all, you are violating the Geneva agreements and getting yourself involved in a serious violation and could ... be declared a persona non grata and would have to leave the country," Chavez.


    The top American envoy to Venezuela told Caracas' Union Radio the planned takeover of CA Nacional de Telefonos, or CANTV, should proceed "in a transparent, legal manner" and that Venezuela's government must offer "fair and quick compensation to the people who are affected or the owners."


    "These are the only obligations that a government has when it decides to nationalize an industry," Brownfield added.


    Thursday's exchange is the latest demonstration of tensions between Caracas and Washington.


    U.S. officials have accused Chavez of becoming increasingly authoritarian and of being a destabilizing force in Latin America. The Venezuelan leader has repeatedly accused Washington of scheming against his left-leaning government.


    Virginia-based Verizon Communications Inc. holds the largest minority share of CANTV, which was privatized in 1991. The takeover jeopardizes an agreement by Verizon to sell its 28.5 percent stake in CANTV to a joint venture of America Movil and Telefonos de Mexico SA, controlled by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim.


    The sale had been awaiting Venezuelan government regulatory approval.


    Chavez, a self-proclaimed "revolutionary" who is steering Venezuela toward socialism, has said he wants an immediate state takeover of the telephone company and will not pay shareholders the market value. The Venezuelan leader has said the price for CANTV would take into account debts to workers, pensions and other obligations to the state.


    Brownfield said he was optimistic that shareholders would be fairly compensated.


    "I think it can be a process that concludes in a satisfactory manner for all those involved, that's my hope," he said.


    Chavez a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro also has said he plans to nationalize the electricity sector, and take state control of four lucrative oil projects and the natural gas sector.


    Relations between Caracas and Washington have been tense since Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup that he claimed the U.S. played a role in. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied involvement, although it recognized an interim government established by coup leaders.


    Brownfield said he wanted to improve relations through "a serious and pragmatic dialogue between the two governments, to identify issues of mutual interest and to look for solutions to those issues."

    [url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/01/25/international/i181141S98.DTL[/url]

  2. #2
    So Dawg it appears the US envoy is doing he's job in starting "Dialogue" for the protection of american property in VZ and Chavez wants to throw him out. This great popular leader wants to effectively cut off "Dialogue"

    As someone you claims to put great value on "Dialogue" and have said how much better a leader Chavez is for his people than Bush is for his people, how come Chavez seems to have a lot less respect for dialogue than Bush does?

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]So Dawg it appears the US envoy is doing he's job in starting "Dialogue" for the protection of american property in VZ and Chavez wants to throw him out. This great popular leader wants to effectively cut off "Dialogue"

    As someone you claims to put great value on "Dialogue" and have said how much better a leader Chavez is for his people than Bush is for his people, how come Chavez seems to have a lot less respect for dialogue than Bush does?[/QUOTE]

    Let's keep this clear, Chavez has his people in Vz behind him. They applaud what he is doing. Bush has the country and his own party against him.

    Chavez is doing what is in the best interest of his country to lead them. Bush is doing what is in his own interest. Clearly Chavez has the upper hand when it comes to leadership. His people are behind him.

    As far as Chavez knocking off dialog here peep this:

    [COLOR=Blue][I]"If you continue meddling in Venezuela's affairs, first of all, you are violating the Geneva agreements and getting yourself involved in a serious violation and could ... be declared a persona non grata and would have to leave the country," Chavez.[/I][/COLOR]

    [COLOR=Blue][I]Relations between Caracas and Washington have been tense since Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup that he claimed the U.S. played a role in. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied involvement, although it recognized an interim government established by coup leaders.[/I][/COLOR]

    That may be reason enough for his denial of access. It does not mean he is right. I do wonder about the [COLOR=Blue][I]"violating the Geneva agreements"[/I][/COLOR].

    [I][COLOR=Blue]Brownfield said he wanted to improve relations through "a serious and pragmatic dialogue between the two governments, to identify issues of mutual interest and to look for solutions to those issues."[/COLOR][/I]

    This is a good step here by the US. After being so cold for a few years, it may be difficult to try to warm things up quickly.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Let's keep this clear, Chavez has his people in Vz behind him. They applaud what he is doing. Bush has the country and his own party against him.

    Chavez is doing what is in the best interest of his country to lead them. Bush is doing what is in his own interest. Clearly Chavez has the upper hand when it comes to leadership. His people are behind him.

    As far as Chavez knocking off dialog here peep this:

    [COLOR=Blue][I]"If you continue meddling in Venezuela's affairs, first of all, you are violating the Geneva agreements and getting yourself involved in a serious violation and could ... be declared a persona non grata and would have to leave the country," Chavez.[/I][/COLOR]

    [COLOR=Blue][I]Relations between Caracas and Washington have been tense since Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup that he claimed the U.S. played a role in. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied involvement, although it recognized an interim government established by coup leaders.[/I][/COLOR]

    That may be reason enough for his denial of access. It does not mean he is right. I do wonder about the [COLOR=Blue][I]"violating the Geneva agreements"[/I][/COLOR].

    [I][COLOR=Blue]Brownfield said he wanted to improve relations through "a serious and pragmatic dialogue between the two governments, to identify issues of mutual interest and to look for solutions to those issues."[/COLOR][/I]



    This is a good step here by the US. After being so cold for a few years, it may be difficult to try to warm things up quickly.[/QUOTE]


    You amaze me. I am quite seriously impressed that you know how to type.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]You amaze me. I am quite seriously impressed that you know how to type.[/QUOTE]

    if he ever learns to think for himself he could be dangerous.....

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]if he ever learns to think for himself he could be dangerous.....[/QUOTE]


    I do think for myself and more and more people are thinking like me. 35-0 dude.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]I do think for myself and more and more people are thinking like me. 35-0 dude.[/QUOTE]

    odd, Lamont lost, didn't he?

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Let's keep this clear, Chavez has his people in Vz behind him. They applaud what he is doing. Bush has the country and his own party against him.

    Chavez is doing what is in the best interest of his country to lead them. Bush is doing what is in his own interest. Clearly Chavez has the upper hand when it comes to leadership. His people are behind him.

    As far as Chavez knocking off dialog here peep this:

    [COLOR=Blue][I]"If you continue meddling in Venezuela's affairs, first of all, you are violating the Geneva agreements and getting yourself involved in a serious violation and could ... be declared a persona non grata and would have to leave the country," Chavez.[/I][/COLOR]

    [COLOR=Blue][I]Relations between Caracas and Washington have been tense since Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup that he claimed the U.S. played a role in. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied involvement, although it recognized an interim government established by coup leaders.[/I][/COLOR]

    That may be reason enough for his denial of access. It does not mean he is right. I do wonder about the [COLOR=Blue][I]"violating the Geneva agreements"[/I][/COLOR].

    [I][COLOR=Blue]Brownfield said he wanted to improve relations through "a serious and pragmatic dialogue between the two governments, to identify issues of mutual interest and to look for solutions to those issues."[/COLOR][/I]

    This is a good step here by the US. After being so cold for a few years, it may be difficult to try to warm things up quickly.[/QUOTE]


    Last time I looked Bush was elected President of the US. You seem to discount this yet count Chavez's election as some kind of mandate? As an American and a former Marine, I would think that Chavez stealing assets from US citizen shareholders would concern you. In this case the US government is asking that it's citizens rights be protected and you seem to be supporting Chavez's position against the US.

    I'm assuming you're a citizen of the US so why would you take Chavez's position which may or may not be good for he's people? I'm assuming that you think the US citizens who voted for Bush and were in the majority in the last election, were wrong? Isn't it possible that now that Chavez is dismantleing the free political process that he's popularity might be short lived? A kind of buyers remorse? Didn't Bush have very high ratings only to see them plummet after he's policy didn't seem to work the way most felt they should? Couldn't this very well happen to Chavez or is that not possible for a left leaning dictator?

    Regardless of whether or not Chavez is good for VZ, he is clearly not good for US citizens. Why would you take Chavez's side over a US diplomat who is trying to do right for US citizens?
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 01-26-2007 at 03:08 PM.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]odd, Lamont lost, didn't he?[/QUOTE]

    and to LIEberman none the less.....

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Last time I looked Bush was elected President of the US. You seem to discount this yet count Chavez's election as some kind of mandate? As an American and a former Marine, I would think that Chavez stealing assets from US citizen shareholders would concern you. In this case the US government is asking that it's citizens rights be protected and you seem to be supporting Chavez's position against the US.

    I'm assuming you're a citizen of the US so why would you take Chavez's position which may or may not be good for he's people? I'm assuming that you think the US citizens who voted for Bush and were in the majority in the last election, were wrong? Isn't it possible that now that Chavez is dismantleing the free political process that he's popularity might be short lived? A kind of buyers remorse? Didn't Bush have very high ratings only to see them plummet after he's policy didn't seem to work the way most felt they should? Couldn't this very well happen to Chavez or is that not possible for a left leaning dictator?

    Regardless of whether or not Chavez is good for VZ, he is clearly not good for US citizens. Why would you take Chavez's side over a US diplomat who is trying to do right for US citizens?[/QUOTE]

    Winny, what has GWB's election have to do with his standing today? He is not leading properly. I am not alone in this assessment.

    I happen to be a stockholder of Verizon. I am concerned.

    Where and when did I say that I am taking Chavez's position? I am simply stating that currently he is a better leader than GWB. This administration ignored him since 2002 and it shows. How can you not see this?

    It is possible that Chavez is dismantling the free political process, however the people right now are with him. The people were with GWB, he blew it.

    As an American and a Former Marine, I am still a free thinker. I don't like the direction that this is going. I am not taking Chavez's side. I don't approve of my country doing wrong. I also don't like other countries doing wrong to the USA.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]odd, Lamont lost, didn't he?[/QUOTE]


    LIEberman is still considered a democrat. Although and ID now. The republicans did not win that seat.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Let's keep this clear, Chavez has his people in Vz behind him. They applaud what he is doing. Bush has the country and his own party against him.

    Chavez is doing what is in the best interest of his country to lead them. Bush is doing what is in his own interest. Clearly Chavez has the upper hand when it comes to leadership. His people are behind him.

    As far as Chavez knocking off dialog here peep this:

    [COLOR=Blue][I]"If you continue meddling in Venezuela's affairs, first of all, you are violating the Geneva agreements and getting yourself involved in a serious violation and could ... be declared a persona non grata and would have to leave the country," Chavez.[/I][/COLOR]

    [COLOR=Blue][I]Relations between Caracas and Washington have been tense since Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup that he claimed the U.S. played a role in. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied involvement, although it recognized an interim government established by coup leaders.[/I][/COLOR]

    That may be reason enough for his denial of access. It does not mean he is right. I do wonder about the [COLOR=Blue][I]"violating the Geneva agreements"[/I][/COLOR].

    [I][COLOR=Blue]Brownfield said he wanted to improve relations through "a serious and pragmatic dialogue between the two governments, to identify issues of mutual interest and to look for solutions to those issues."[/COLOR][/I]

    This is a good step here by the US. After being so cold for a few years, it may be difficult to try to warm things up quickly.[/QUOTE]


    Hitler had his people behind him, too. Doesn't exactly make him a great guy, now does it.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Winny, what has GWB's election have to do with his standing today? He is not leading properly. I am not alone in this assessment.

    I happen to be a stockholder of Verizon. I am concerned.

    Where and when did I say that I am taking Chavez's position? I am simply stating that currently he is a better leader than GWB. This administration ignored him since 2002 and it shows. How can you not see this?

    It is possible that Chavez is dismantling the free political process, however the people right now are with him. The people were with GWB, he blew it.

    As an American and a Former Marine, I am still a free thinker. I don't like the direction that this is going. I am not taking Chavez's side. I don't approve of my country doing wrong. I also don't like other countries doing wrong to the USA.[/QUOTE]

    Get me the current opion poll in VZ that shows the people are with him. I don't think when he gave them free gas he promised them he was takeing away free elections, free opposition, free press? Bush was elected two years ago and he has falling into the crapper, what makes you think Chavez will be any more liked in two years when the economy of VZ is down the tubes and he is at loggerheads with Brazil.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=pauliec]Hitler had his people behind him, too. Doesn't exactly make him a great guy, now does it.[/QUOTE]

    Not talking about being a great guy. The conversation is about leadership and having the people behind you. They are two different topics

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Get me the current opion poll in VZ that shows the people are with him. I don't think when he gave them free gas he promised them he was takeing away free elections, free opposition, free press? Bush was elected two years ago and he has falling into the crapper, what makes you think Chavez will be any more liked in two years when the economy of VZ is down the tubes and he is at loggerheads with Brazil.[/QUOTE]

    Hey guy you can look for that yourself. This link may provide some insight:

    [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6191348.stm[/url]

    [I]Consequently, Chavez has been able to adopt an aggressive stance against perceived injustices - neo-liberal policies, the war in Iraq, the suffering of Palestinian people.

    These sentiments come from a genuine and deep felt sense of grievance against the current global order. [/I]

    [I]There is a strong two-way relationship between Chavez and his supporters and all changes have been approved in referendums or elections (10 of which have been held since 1999). [/I]

    I con't worry about 2 years from now with Chavez. Two years ago did GWB look like he would fall apart? Anything is possible.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Not talking about being a great guy. The conversation is about leadership and having the people behind you. They are two different topics[/QUOTE]
    OK, Hitler had his country behind him. Doesn't make him admirable, does it?

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Not talking about being a great guy. The conversation is about leadership and having the people behind you. They are two different topics[/QUOTE]


    Well, then, Hitler was a hell of a leader. So was Stalin, and Mussolini to a lesser extent. Sadam Hussein was always backed by his country, he won every election with 100% of the vote.

    The difference is that these guys led through fear, and their citizens weren't given a choice either way who to support. It was either support this guy or lose your home, family, life, or all three.

    The greatest thing about our country is the ability to choose. No President ever has the support that leaders in some other countries have because of the nature of our democracy. People in our country actually have the luxury to stand outside of the White House and say very vulgar, harsh things about the President and not get killed. And that's what's so great.

    I'm not sure what your point is, but I just want to make sure you're not confusing fear and lack of liberties with being a good leader.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=pauliec]Well, then, Hitler was a hell of a leader. So was Stalin, and Mussolini to a lesser extent. Sadam Hussein was always backed by his country, he won every election with 100% of the vote.

    [B]The difference is that these guys led through fear[/B], and their citizens weren't given a choice either way who to support. It was either support this guy or lose your home, family, life, or all three.

    The greatest thing about our country is the ability to choose. No President ever has the support that leaders in some other countries have because of the nature of our democracy. People in our country actually have the luxury to stand outside of the White House and say very vulgar, harsh things about the President and not get killed. And that's what's so great.

    I'm not sure what your point is, but I just want to make sure you're not confusing fear and lack of liberties with being a good leader.[/QUOTE]

    Think about this; "a vote for the democrats is a vote for the terrorists". Isn't that a fear tactic? If we leave Iraq the terrorists will follow us home? What is that?

    I love the fact that I can go the WH and scream about how bad things are to the top of my lungs. There is a protest this weekend in DC. They are expecting about 300,000 or more.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Think about this; "a vote for the democrats is a vote for the terrorists". Isn't that a fear tactic? If we leave Iraq the terrorists will follow us home? What is that?[/QUOTE]


    That's called a campaign tactic. No different than every Democrat running for Senate threatening that a vote for a Republican will only "stay the course" in the Iraq. Every commercial here in NJ for the Democrat Senator said that his running mate supports Bush "staying the course". Not only was that not true, that was his only campaign platform. Your mind really is that biased that you can't see that?

    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]
    I love the fact that I can go the WH and scream about how bad things are to the top of my lungs. There is a protest this weekend in DC. They are expecting about 300,000 or more.[/QUOTE]


    Try that in Venezuela. See how long you get to keep your farmland.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=pauliec]

    Try that in Venezuela. See how long you get to keep your farmland.[/QUOTE]



    Wait....You mean the government doesn't own their farmland yet?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us